Impeachment of CJI not a solution to judicial crisis, says Justice Chelameswar

Supreme Court judge Justice J. Chelameswar on Saturday rejected the idea of impeachment as a solution to any of the problems plaguing Indian judiciary.

In comments that gain significance in the backdrop of opposition efforts to go for an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Chelameswar said as the apex court observed in its judgment on Justice C.S. Karnan, impeachment cannot be an answer to every question or problem.

"This phrase has gained currency over the last two months. Somebody wrote I should be impeached. A system should be put in place for correcting the system," he said.

Chelameswar, who was in conversation with senior journalist Karan Thapar at a Harvard Club of India event, also hoped that Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is next in line to be the CJI, is not superseded. He was replying to a question on whether he feared that Gogoi could be superseded on account of having been one of the four senior most judges of the apex court who held an unprecedented press conference in January to voice concerns with regard to the manner in which the present CJI was managing the court.

"I hope it will not happen. If it happens, it will only prove that whatever we said in the press conference is correct," he said.

Chelameswar said he does not believe that he and the other three senior-most judges of the apex court breached any laid down principles by holding a press conference. He said the only restriction on judges is that they cannot give interviews on judgments.

The event saw a big turnout as there was anticipation with regard to what Chelameswar would say on the topic of discussion 'Role of Judiciary in a Democracy'. The immense interest emanated from the judge having taken the lead in questioning the manner in which the Supreme Court is functioning. The judges' press conference had taken place at his residence. More recently, he wrote a hard-hitting letter to the CJI, alleging interference by the government in appointment of judges.

Chelameswar, the second senior most judge in the Supreme Court, retires in June this year.

The judge, who has gained reputation of being a rebel against the system, was largely cautious in his statements as he was queried on the press conference and the issues arising out of it.

However, Chelameswar said that he was not aware of the government's response to the apex court on the draft Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of members of the higher judiciary. The indication was that he and other members of the SC collegium were not in the loop with regard to the developments.

"I am not aware of this letter at all," he said to a pointed question if it means that the CJI did not inform him and the other judges in the collegium about it.

Chelameswar also said that the apex court has communicated to the government that it is okay with the clause that a recommendation of the collegium can be turned down on grounds of national security, provided the government provides material to support its reservation with a candidate.

Asked about Justice Misra overturning the decision of a bench headed by him in the Prasad Medical Trust case on grounds that he had stepped into a zone that was the prerogative of the CJI, Chelameswar said, “I am still struggling with the question of what was it that required reversal of the order.”

On the criticism that Justice Misra had allegedly allocated sensitive cases selectively to benches, Chelameswar said it was something that had been going on for quite some time, indicating that the wrong practice has preceded the present CJI. He said that while the CJI has the authority to constitute benches, the power is not unfettered and comes with a certain responsibility.

Asked about the CJI keeping with himself PILs in the new roster system, he said, “He is the master of roster. If he has the ability to handle the entire world, let him do it.”

when asked about former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa's disproportionate assets case with reference to the issue of hand-picked benches, the judge said, "The judgment was reserved for an entire year. What purpose did that serve? Did assessment (in constituting bench) not fail there?"